Enterprise architecture approach at European Space Agency (ESA)

Transcription

1 1

2 Enterprise architecture approach at European Space Agency (ESA) Robert Suzić, Niklas Lindman, ESA ESTEC, TEC-SWM, Noordwijk, The Netherlands 6 th of February 2012

3 Outline About European Space Agency (ESA) Complex (system of) systems challenges at ESA R&D Activities: ESA Architecture Framework (ESA-AF) Case study: Space Situation Awareness Conclusions and Outlook 3

4 PURPOSE OF European Space Agency (ESA) To provide for and promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among European states in space research and technology and their space applications. Article 2 of ESA Convention 4

5 ACTIVITIES ESA is one of the few space agencies in the world to combine responsibility in nearly all areas of space activity. Space science Human spaceflight Exploration Earth observation Launchers Navigation Telecommunications Technology Operations 5

6 ESA S INDUSTRIAL POLICY About 90% of ESA s budget is spent on contracts with European industry. ESA s industrial policy: ensures that Member States get a fair return on their investment; improves competitiveness of European industry; maintains and develops space technology; exploits the advantages of free competitive bidding, except where incompatible with objectives of the industrial policy. 6

7 Complex (system of) systems challenges at ESA

8 Todays Challenges Increased complexity - ESA is getting increasingly challenged by the call for developments of systems that should no longer be considered space systems only Opportunities of sharing assets require systems capable of providing services comprising of capabilities delivered by a combination of independently developed and operated systems, European characteristics of wide diversity of regulations, different socio-technical attitudes, plethora of technical interfaces, economical directives, introduce new strategic, operational and system-technical challenges; 8 especially, when aiming to implement joint and combined European capabilities in order to optimize benefits from available and planned heterogeneous assets. Such assets shall support provision of a number of services by combining different types of systems such as space and ground as well as civil and dualuse.

9 Todays Challenges Financially very demanding (affordable only through joint financing and execution) - Space systems can be financially very demanding and the most types of programmes like GMES or SSA can be delivered only through joint efforts, by integrating available and planned functionalities and reusing existing assets as configurations of loosely coupled systems. Examples at ESA Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) Galileo/COSPAS-SARSAT Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Human Exploration 9

10 System of Systems Large scale integrated systems that are heterogeneous and independently operable on their own, but are networked together for a common goal Jamshidi, M., Systems of Systems Engineering: Innovation for the 21th Century, Wiley, 2009 Added value capability aircraft spacecraft SoS surveillance ground systems sensors equipment platforms 10

11 General System Engineering Issues System Engineering Issues: System design/architecture is typically captured in office tools Traceability issues Difficult to ensure completeness and consistency Heavy review processes Ø There is a need to improve the management and system engineering methods to cope with the increasing size and complexity while maintaining quality. Ø Model Based System Engineering 11

12 Particular challenges with complex system (of systems) SoS Governance i.e. ownership, control, IPR, operating entities, agreements, funding, decision making processes, Policy conformance e.g. security and data policies, Communication between stakeholders, Ensuring traceability, consistency and completeness, Interoperability i.e. both technical as well as programmatic, (Architecture) trade-off analysis, Gap analysis, Operability, Performances and integrity (Reliability, Availability, Timeliness etc. ), Standards conformance and Technology readiness (e.g. TRL) 12

13 R&D Activities: ESA Architecture Framework (ESA-AF)

14 ESA Architecture Framework (ESA-AF) Overview To support the System-of-Systems architecting, TEC-SWM has developed an architecture framework (ESA-AF) for ESA programs: Service to projects/programmes within ESA Tool solution to be used by ESA and suppliers The solution is mainly based on existing standards (UPDM/MODAF v.1.1) and COTS (MagicDraw, Eclipse BIRT) with some ESA specific extensions, like e.g.,: Financial views e.g., costs, financial contributions, projects Agreements views e.g., agreements, projects, deliverables Risk views e.g. risktype, subjectofrisk, riskowner Data policy and security views Availability, Reliability and Maintainability - extends the UPDM resource constraint The ESA-AF provides a model based approach to the system-of-system architecting. 14

15 Mobile Radar 2 SAT terminal Fixed Radar SAT Terminal METEO SATELLITE EO SATELLITE COM SATELLITE Radio Single Bird Detection Mobile Radar ESA-AF Elements Process and Governance (TOGAF alike) Glossary and Meta-model (UPDM/MODAF and ESA-AF specific) Processing Center Processing D & F Center B Processing Center NL Ground Network Virtual Processing Center Models Monitored Area Airport 1 Airport 2 Decision & Command Center Modelling 15 Tool (MagicDraw ESA-plugin) Exploitation Framework (Eclipse BIRT)

16 ESA-AF Architecture: high level 16 Meta-Modeller and Process Modeller Enterprise Architect and Modeller Systems Manager, Programme Manager and Customer

17 ESA-AF Architecture: solution level 17

18 Meta-model scope Enterprise Goals Service architecture Programm Operational architecture Policy Standards and Technologies System architecture Security 18

19 19

20 ESA-AF Cost Modeling: Example 20

21 ESA-AF Exploitation Framework 21

22 ESA-AF Model might not be perfect choice for decision maker 22

23 ESA-AF Exploitation Framework Reporting 23

24 ESA-AF Exploitation Framework Diagramming 24

25 SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (SSA) 25 Image: Dan Durda/FIAAA

26 SSA Related Work Functional system requirements verification and refinement Logical level analysis for defining: System and service functionalities Flows between (material and information) Hierarchy between functionalities 26 Information models on different granularity levels for each segment

27 SSA Related Work: lessons learned Use as clear and clean as possible view descriptions Hide meta-modeling complexity and do not over-explain the framework (stakeholders want robust solutions to the problems and are typically not interested in framework details) Use as few as possible different types of (meta-modeling) artifacts Readability can be a challenge: Not easy to put complex views in documents Document inconsistencies in the models and raise them on recurrent basis (i.e., there are no stupid questions) Successes factor: verification and requirements refinement was performed in a close cooperation with subject matter experts (in an iterative manner) 27

28 SSA Related Work: next step ESA-AF made applicable to SSA design activity with industry required to deliver a system design for its all three segments according to the ESA-AF method and tools. 28

29 29 Conclusion and Outlook

30 Conclusion and Outlook ESA-AF is a mean to address EA and SoS engineering challenges and complexity within ESA programs ESA-AF: Based on industry and open standards to foster adoption Flexible, model-driven approach facilitating future framework development, Exploitation framework, enabling enhanced decision support by bridging the perspectives of technical and non-technical decision makers in space programs ESA-AF delivers a solid base for enterprise architecting and SoS engineering for ESA programs/projects by establishing a common architecture definition language and processes tailored to ESA s needs as well as associated exploitation best-practices Main challenge for the future is to introduce and apply the EA methods consistently within and across ESA programs. 30

31 Would you like to know more? Robert Suzić, Niklas Lindman, 31

32 32 Back-up slides

33 ESA FACTS AND FIGURES Over 40 years of experience 18 Member States, 19 in 2011 Five establishments in Europe, about 2200 staff 4 billion Euro budget (2011) Over 70 satellites designed, tested and operated in flight 17 scientific satellites in operation Six types of launcher developed Celebrated the 200th launch of Ariane in February

34 19 MEMBER STATES AND GROWING ESA has 19 Member States: 17 states of the EU (AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IT, GR, IE, LU, NL, PT, RO, SE, UK) plus Norway and Switzerland. Eight other EU states have Cooperation Agreements with ESA: Estonia, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic. Bulgaria and Malta are negotiating Cooperation Agreements. Canada takes part in some programmes under a Cooperation Agreement. 34

35 ESA S LOCATIONS ESTEC (Noordwijk) EAC (Cologne) Salmijaervi (Kiruna) ESA sites/facilities Offices ESA ground stations ESA HQ (Paris) Brussels Redu Toulouse Cebreros, Villafranca Harwell ESAC (Madrid) ESRIN (Rome) ESOC (Darmstadt) Oberpfaffenhofen Moscow Washington Santa Maria Houston Malargüe Kourou Maspalomas New Norcia Perth 35

36 COOPERATION WITH THE EU The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 reinforces the case for space in Europe and strengthens the role of ESA as an R&D space agency. Article 189 of the Treaty gives the EU a mandate to elaborate a European space policy and take related measures, and provides that the EU should establish appropriate relations with ESA. ESA/EU Framework Agreement currently in force Seven Space Council meetings and related resolutions and orientations provide directions and guidelines Programmes: Galileo, GMES, SSA 36